Downtown parking becomes political football

In fact, for some Worcesterites the right to be able to park in front of or next to a business they want to patronize ranks right up there with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, easy and accessible parking is valued by many here.

Joseph A. Kellogg, a former assistant city manager for development during City Manager William J. Mulford's administration, learned that lesson when he came to Worcester from Cambridge in the late 1980s.

Mr. Kellogg provided a rare outsider's perspective on the city and one of the first things he noticed about Worcester was how people and business owners not only expected, but demanded, plentiful and easy parking in the downtown area.

Downtown property owners clamored for more on-street parking, parking lots and even parking garages because they felt their customers and prospective tenants would not want to walk a great distance to get to their destination.

While Mr. Kellogg was sympathetic to the concerns that were raised, he said some things were going to have to be done differently if the city was going to redevelop its downtown.

"We need to start changing some attitudes," Mr. Kellogg said in an interview in October 1989. "People are just going to have to realize that you won't be able to park in the same block that you are going to. Go to cities like Hartford or Cambridge and try parking on the same block you want to go to. It can't be done."

But such a philosophy did not sit so well with many of the city's elected officials back then because it went against what people in Worcester had long been accustomed to. Needless to say, those long-held attitudes Mr. Kellogg talked about never changed.

Nearly 25 years later, the issue of parking is back front and center in Worcester, and once again city officials are talking about how less is better when it comes to off-street parking requirements.

They want to eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements as part of a multifaceted proposal, known as the Commercial Corridors Overlay District, which has been brought forward by the city administration.

The ordinance is intended to stimulate redevelopment downtown and in commercial areas outside it by encouraging compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development projects, as well as promoting the development of small lots and the preservation of existing buildings.

The ordinance, among other things, reduces dimensional and landscaping requirements for parking lots; allows high-density, mixed-use development that includes residences by reducing the frontage requirements for residences to 40 feet; and provides incentives for mixed-use developments.

But one aspect that has drawn the most push-back is the provision to eliminate off-street parking requirements within the overlay district.

Developers who want to provide parking, meanwhile, would have to adhere to certain maximums, which pretty much reflect what the minimum requirements are today. And those developers who want to provide more spaces than the maximum allowed would have to obtain a special permit from the Planning Board.

The proposed policy runs smack opposite what the city has been requiring of developers in Worcester for years.

So, why is less in the way of parking requirements suddenly the rage at City Hall?

The feeling among city planners is that while Worcester is a city, it has outdated suburban-type off-street parking requirements.

They say the level of parking requirements is quite high in Worcester compared to many other New England cities, many of which require half the amount of off-street parking.

Planners also feel that the city's parking requirements have stifled the ability to develop small lots and redevelop existing vacant buildings, especially in the downtown area. It is their opinion that the market and not the city should dictate the need for off-street parking.

"We want to eliminate the over-dedication of land for parking," Stephen S. Rolle, director of the city's Division of Planning and Regulatory Services, said last week. "We want to let businesses determine how many (parking) spaces they need."

The Commercial Corridors Overlay District ordinance would cover all of the downtown, and all or parts of Highland Street, Chandler Street, Shrewsbury Street, Main Street, Grafton Street, the Canal District, Pleasant Street and Gateway Park.

While to many people the ordinance has the potential to be effective in the downtown area, the sentiment is much different when it comes to having the same rules in the commercial corridors outside the downtown.

Last week, William T. Breault of the Main South Alliance for Public Safety, Gary J. Vecchio of the Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association, and Vincent A. Pedone, chairman of the Worcester Redevelopment Authority, were among those who testified before the Planning Board in opposition to the parking provision of the ordinance.

They argued that while eliminating off-street parking requirements downtown might promote development there, they predicted that it would create a disaster in the neighborhoods.

"One size does not fit all," Mr. Vecchio told the Planning Board. "What may work on one street may not work on Shrewsbury Street. This (proposal) is a recipe for disaster on Shrewsbury Street. It is an already challenged street in terms of parking, and it will become a disaster area if this is adopted."

City Councilor-at-Large Michael T. Gaffney said there is a lot to like about the overlay proposal and even went so far as to say that it could be a "brilliant plan" for downtown. But he acknowledged that the parking provision could present significant challenges in commercial areas outside downtown, such as on Shrewsbury Street.

City planners have agreed to revisit the off-street parking provision of the proposed Commercial Corridors Overlay District ordinance to see if it can be tweaked to address the concerns of those in neighborhood commercial corridors.

Some have also suggested that the city consider implementing the new parking requirements downtown first before expanding them to the commercial corridors in the neighborhoods to see how they work out.

"This should serve as the beginning of a conversation about parking," Planning Board member Robert Ochoa said. "Sometimes I feel we have too many parking lots; many are not being utilized and they have become empty and eyesores.

"This plan is ambitious and maybe we should first concentrate on the downtown area and then have further conversations about the outlying areas," he added.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.